New London Taxicabs (Hansard, 18 February 1985)

§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

Do you realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the traditional London taxi is about to disappear from the streets? I discovered that shocking truth recently, and what I found since leads me to believe that the House of Commons, all Londoners and all those who live in our other towns and cities where our London model is used should be made aware of the impending disaster.

Most of us take the design of the taxi for granted. It has been with us for so long — its history reaches from Edwardian times and is based on the hackney carriage, although the present model was introduced in the 1950s — that it is easily recognisable to everyone. It is a singular design. In many cities travellers have to put up with mere saloon cars plying as taxis. That is part of the dull uniformity which is the curse of modern cities. In London we have a vehicle which was not only designed for its purpose but which over the years has been improved to meet changing needs, circumstances and standards.

The London taxi can negotiate the busiest London street and can turn round in a remarkably small space. It can take up to four passengers safely, has room for an enormous amount of luggage beside the driver, and can accommodate a wheelchair in the passenger compartment. The London dial-a-ride system for handicapped people uses it with few complaints.

As improvements have proved necessary, they have been made without altering the basic design. Taxi drivers are happy with it; Londoners love it; and foreign visitors are charmed by it. It is efficient, economical, reliable—who has ever seen a broken-down taxicab? — and popular. It is a triumph of design in that it marries practical experience of need with high aesthetic standards. Socially, it is a distinguished ornament of the British way of life. It makes a Cockney feel like a king; it is the poor man's chauffeured Rolls for a night; and top hat and tiara fit as comfortably in it as do busy businessmen with their brief cases. Why, therefore, is there any question of changing it? Why, when we have a winner, must someone insist on change for change's sake? Why must the London travelling public be forced to accept a token of dull uniformity in its place?

I have gone into this in some detail. It appears that one of the villains of the piece is Carbodies Ltd., the very firm which makes the current design. It has apparently been working on a new design since 1976, and it has produced a prototype but does not expect to go into production for another year or more because of the numerous modifications needed. It does not seem to be in any hurry.

Mr. Dennis Poore, the chairman of Manganese Bronze Holdings plc. which owns Carbodies, told me that the new model is required to meet European Community regulations. When I asked him what these were, he wrote on 8 October 1984 promising to tell me within a week or so".

I am still waiting—on 18 February 1985. A week is a long time in business as well as in politics! Another villain of the piece is my hon. Friend's Department, the Department of Trade and Industry. It 836 made the decision — incredible for a Conservative Government—to invest £.1.3 million in the new design in 1983. The GLC also paid over some money, but then we are used to the present GLC irresponsibly spending money like water.

The Government cannot be so easily acquitted. When in a parliamentary question I asked what public funds had been invested in the new model, the Minister of State replied that the details were confidential. He added: To attract support, all research and development projects must satisfy the published criteria for assistance under the support for innovation scheme."—[Official Report, 31 October 1984; Vol. 65, c. 1023.]

Innovation indeed! At the rate it is going, Carbodies' new design will be out of date when it is produced, whereas improvements to the existing model will keep it abreast of the times. Is more taxpayers' money to be wasted on this project? Does Carbodies want more before it completes it? How much money has been spent on it so far? How much has come out of the public purse? Will my hon. Friend answer those questions?

The usual villain of these scenes — the European Community—can be acquitted. Any new taxi will have to comply with European Community regulations. But the present model has been granted exemption from European Community regulations relating to inferior fittings and exterior projections, according to the Minister of State's reply to my question on 31 October. The present London taxi meets current British national type approval requirements in all respects.

It all sounds so depressingly familiar — change for change's sake, more and more public money invested in a project whose justification gets less and less.

The new design, so far as it has been revealed in the prototypes, is unlikely to be popular with Londoners. Mr. Poore tells me that it is not based on the Range Rover, but that is the impression one gets. Taxi drivers who have seen it say that it is too small, too cramped and too low. All those whose opinions I have sought have condemned it. There has been little, if any, consultation with taxi drivers themselves, and none at all with the general public. Some organisations for the disabled have welcomed it, for it is said to incorporate a ramp and to permit the loading of a wheelchair somewhat larger than the size which the existing model can accommodate, but the difference is only slight.

I recently received a letter from a London taxi driver who has been in the job all his life, except for when he drove a tank in Germany. His father was a horse and motor cabman before him. He says: Since the war I have carried just three wheelchairs and their occupants, one of which was quite recently. One chair went into the boot, one chair went on to the luggage platform and one went inside. In no instance did the person involved have any trouble getting into the cab for the tip up front seats are ideal for any unfortunate person who needs a wheelchair and I feel certain no other vehicle can be as satisfactory as the present FX4. It is said that the new vehicle will create more jobs. I wonder what the present builders of the FX4 think of the idea. On the other hand, the extra features that the new design requires will add enormously to its price. One trade source told me that £10,000 was the likely minimum, and rising, compared with the lower price for the existing model. It is debatable whether all future taxis must be forced to incorporate a wheelchair feature when the demand can only ever be for a very limited proportion of the population. The very act of carrying a heavy wheelchair might involve drivers in awkward questions of 837 legal liability if accidents were to occur. Compared with modifications to the existing design, I doubt whether it is wise to claim, as Mr. Poore did last year, that the new model will add an extra dimension to the lives of the physically handicapped. It will be a cruel deception if, when the new model is on the streets, the process of getting wheelchairs into it via a ramp is so cumbersome and awkward that drivers will not welcome disabled passengers in wheelchairs.

Since I began taking an interest in this matter, I have received many letters and messages of support for the traditional London taxicab from all over the world. Correspondents from the United States have been particularly concerned and have often expressed themselves in ways which may interest the House. Here is part of a letter from Mr. Samuel Gorovitz, of Maryland: Like many fellow Americans, I have great fondness for England and for London in particular, and have visited many times. I have taken hundreds of photographs during these visits over the past twenty five years. Just a few weeks ago, I proudly hung on the wall of my home a 30" by 40" enlargement of the best of these pictures — a photograph of a taxi rank in Knightsbridge, taken in March of this year when my wife and I were there to visit our daughter, then studying at the University of London. That picture more than any other, captures for us the feel and spirit of London.

The traditional London taxi is a symbol of England that is universally recognised and admired. That is not merely because of the aesthetic appeal of the design; it is also because of its association with the pervasive quality of the London taxi system —the envy of the world, and a standard of competence and civility that is unapproached anywhere else. It is thus no surprise that all those friends and neighbours with whom I have discussed this gloomy news have reacted with the same horror that prompts this letter now.

Replace the traditional taxi, and you do not merely make a change in equipment, you change the face of the city. You destroy a visual image that says 'London!' in the most welcoming possible way to people throughout the world. You desecrate a national treasure, no less than by turning a stately home into an auto parts warehouse. No newer taxi, no matter what its performance characteristics, could fill the resulting gap.

It is not that I oppose technological progress. On the contrary, I devote much of my time to advocating and facilitating it. But the best of the old must never give way to an unreasoned quest for the new. That is a lesson I had thought we Americans still needed to learn better from you British! This is what Mr. Charles A. Cerami of Washington says: I am sure you know the saying, 'Tout hommes a deux pays: le sien et la France'. There are countries and cities that have made themselves part of everyone's world. London has that status more than almost any other, and it benefits greatly from it. First in material ways—as British Airways and the Connaught Hotel would surely attest. More importantly in the knowledge that so many others stand with you in the love of your capital city … In this case, it is not merely a matter of sentiment. Taxicabs in most other cities are increasingly uncomfortable. Those of London are a splendid exception. Do not destroy what is good. London taxi drivers are a splendid body of people — kind, courteous, efficient and helpful with very few exceptions. They are proud of their craft and of their vehicle. Let us not prevent them from continuing to serve the people of London and its visitors to the same high standard as we have always enjoyed in the past.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier)

I am grateful 838 to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) for providing this opportunity for a debate on the new London taxi.

I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's arguments in favour of the existing black cab—or the FX4 to give it its proper name — and I have much sympathy with his views. The familiar London taxi is undoubtedly considered by many to be an old friend. Indeed, its familiarity on the streets of London is such that the image of the taxi has become almost synonymous with that of the capital itself, both here and overseas. Precisely because it is so familiar, however, we tend to look at the black cab as we do other, rather older and less changing, landmarks and symbols of the city.

In fact, the familiar black cab is simply the latest in a long line of mechanical, as opposed to horse-drawn, cabs which stretches back to August 1897 when the London Electric Cab company of Lambeth put on to the roads of London 14 yellow and black "Bersey" cabs nicknamed, I understand, "humming birds" and capable of attaining a speed of 9 mph. The "humming birds" lasted until 1899, when they were withdrawn on account of the noise they made and their low level of reliability, allowing horse-drawn cabs to make a comeback. The reprieve of the horse-drawn cab was only temporary, however, and in 1903 the first petrol-driven cab was licensed. Taxis initially sought to impersonate the horse-drawn cab, but as time went on other, more original, designs began to emerge, in line with the trend in motor vehicles generally.

The point that I stress, of course, is that although the current black cab is sometimes thought of as an unchanging part of the London scene, it did, in fact, follow a number of very different vehicles, each designed to reflect the needs and wishes of the time. It was actually introduced in its present form just 30 years ago, in 1955.

Although a short time in historical terms, 30 years is a long time in terms of vehicle development, and it is the age of the FX4 that is really its problem. Vehicle technology has advanced substantially over the past 30 years and, while many improvements have been built into the FX4, in the view of many the time has come for a major redesign of the London taxi to be undertaken. A number of manufacturers have been considering the design of a replacement for the FX4, and Carbodies Ltd., which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, itself manufactures the FX4, and which has been in receipt of support from the Department, is engaged in developing a new taxi, codenamed the CR6. My Department and the Department of Transport provided support for this project under the support for innovation scheme, the details of which, following usual practice, must remain confidential so I am afraid that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's specific questions. We supported the project, first, because it seemed to us to be viable and, secondly, because it satisfied the criteria applying to the scheme. The design of the CR6 is aimed at meeting both present day and anticipated legislative requirements and to give both passengers and drivers the standard of comfort and performance that we have come to expect from modern vehicles.

For instance, as my hon. Friend has already said, the CR6 has been specifically designed to allow ease of access for those confined to wheelchairs. This is an important development and one which should provide enormous benefit to those whose handicap means that at present any journey involving public transport can be achieved only 839 with the greatest difficulty. In a civilised society it is right that new designs of public transport should be developed to suit as many people as possible. As is apparent, taxi designs tend to have a long life and the CR6 may set the standard in this respect for the future. I think I am right in saying that it will be the first specialised taxi to have access for the disabled as a specific design objective. As such it will be well placed to take advantage of increasing international awareness and concern about the special needs of the disabled in public transport.

On the question of the external appearance of the CR6, my hon. Friend dislikes the design and of course there will be others who agree with him. Personally, I find it distinctive and appealing, but judgments about such matters are necessarily subjective. This is an area where manufacturers must make a judgment based on their expertise, experience and understanding of the market, but it is, of course, the customer—the taxi owner—who will prove whether or not their judgment is correct.

Indeed, as I have already said, I understand that other manufacturers have been considering the possibility of designing a replacement for the FX4 and I believe that at least one manufacturer is already planning to produce an alternative to the CR6. It is, of course, open to any vehicle 840 which meets the London conditions of fitness to operate as a licensed taxi in London. If my hon. Friend is correct in his view that the CR6 will prove unpopular, I have no doubt that other manufacturers will take advantage of the situation and ensure that alternatives are made available.

I am fairly sure that I shall not be able to change my hon. Friend's opinion of the Carbodies CR6 here tonight. I would hope, however, that he will soon have an opportunity to view one of the prototypes at close quarters and to discuss with the manufacturers some of its advantages over the present vehicle. In time, I hope that he, along with the many other taxi-users in London will come to appreciate the qualities of the CR6 and that it will eventually capture a similar place in their affections as has the present taxi. If I may nevertheless offer just one crumb of comfort, I am told that the oldest FX4 still plying for hire today on the streets of London started work some 16 years ago, in 1969. London taxis are built to last and I am sure that the black cab will be a familiar sight on our streets for a good many years yet.